PREFACE.

The right margin of the original page is partially obscured by a shadow, though the missing text has been reconstructed here for clarity.

cases in which my interpretation differs from Prof. Wright's are few indeed as compared with those in which I have found his guidance invaluable. The first translator of so singular a document, however learned and however careful he may be, can scarcely hope to produce a perfect version, and Prof. Wright, as may be seen from his notes, was far from making such a claim. If I have ventured to explain some passages in a different manner, this has been chiefly in consequence of the fact that I was able to avail myself of various suggestions offered by other scholars who, during the last twenty-six years, have made a special study of the text. The most important of these contributions are due to Prof. Nöldeke Theodor Nöldeke (1836–1930), a towering figure in Oriental studies and Semitic linguistics.; some of them appeared in his review of Prof. Wright's book (Journal of the German Oriental Society original: "Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft" for 1871, pp. 670—679), others he privately communicated to Lipsius Richard Adelbert Lipsius, the German theologian mentioned on the previous page., in whose work (mentioned above) they are cited, others again I have received from him directly, either by word of mouth or in writing, together with his permission to publish them. For this great kindness I beg here to offer him my sincerest thanks. At the same time I desire to express my gratitude to the Editor of this Series, Prof. J. Armitage Robinson A significant New Testament scholar and later the Dean of Westminster. for several suggestions which I have gladly adopted.

In order to insure the accuracy of the text I have, of course examined for myself the MS Manuscript in the British Museum The library collections of the British Museum now reside in the British Library.. The only mistake worth mentioning which I have been able to detect in Prof. Wright's edition, occurs in verse 71 a; here Prof. Wright's conjecture is really the reading of the MS.

It need hardly be said that in the Introduction I have not attempted to give anything like a systematic analysis of the poet's theology, but have confined myself to indicating some of its more important features. The character of my work being mainly philologicalThe study of language in oral and written historical sources; a combination of literary criticism, history, and linguistics., I must leave the task of historical exposition to be completed by persons who possess a very much wider knowledge of the science of comparative religion.